They are not allowed to buy back more than 25% of the average trading volume in any given day. I do not remember if it is 3 month average or just 10 days......but some average period. But more importantly, you don't want management moving the stock up.....significantly better if they let the market do whatever the market will do and attempt to pick up shares at the lowest price as possible. The most management wants to do is put a soft floor on the stock.
I am not claiming they add to the bottom line.....I am saying they don't detract from the bottom line if they must fly. Should they fly as much as they do......that is a completely different question. But not the question we are discussing. As long as you don't park your plane at some major airport, hanger fees aren't that great ($400 a month). And if you park the plane outside, it is even cheaper. Maintenance is general, since they have yet to hold onto a plane remotely long enough to do major overhauls. The majority of the operating cost is fuel, which at a half capacity, is about the same as that number of plane tickets (refundable or last minute). The cost is even better if you compare to first class tickets. And you add in time savings vs hourly rates to pay salaries of people sitting in an airport. The operating cost is significantly less than commercial plus salaries of idle employees.
The big cost is having put up $500k on day one, since you don't discount this. The present value of a $500K loss 4 years down the road is about half, or $250k......and then you get to take that off taxes and you only lose just over $150k in NPV terms. They aren't buying the Mercedes of aircraft, but more like a Honda. But even that is constrained, since there are waiting list and a used plane with only 500 hours on it is probably a great find vs waiting on a list. What would your used Mercedes $80K with only 5,000 miles cost? Not $25K I bet.
It wasn't the plane, since it didn't sell until after the quarter was over. And if they do take a loss on it, it is an accounting loss. On the balance sheet, they would likely straight line depreciate the asset while for tax purposes they would do an accelerated depreciation schedule. You would expect them to book a loss on the balance sheet. But my calculations were based on the cash flows and the annual cash flows of a ownership vs commercial are significantly less. It is the upfront down payment that creates most of the cost of owning a plane.
Didn't know, but not surprising.....I don't think Houston clubs offer much to the bottom line. If anything, going from Rick's concept to Jags is a hit to the top line. The club is in a bad location really, the only reason to go to that part of town is the airport. I think the plane did finalize, last I looked.....the tail number had been transferred.
Fatmoose8: I think you are right on the cease and desist order.....it can only be from this date forward. You get a cease and desist order to stop future economic damage, and you file suit on past economic damages incurred. C&D is preventative and the suit is compensation for past wrongs.
I don't think it works that way......the damages from violating the contract is separate from the damages of violating AMSC's IP rights. It just happens to be in this case, violating the IP rights made it possible for Sinovel to violate the contract. Each could have happened exclusively.
Sinovel could have broken the contract and just decided they weren't going to use AMSC's designs anymore....the commercial arbitration case would be the only viable case.
Or they could have just stole the IP, not signed a new $400M contract and allowed the original contracts to be fulfilled and then use the stolen IP to continue developing turbines afterwards.....in this case, their would be no commercial arbitration case, but only the IP rights case.
I guess in this case, their is the issue of duplicity. If they get an awarded damages on both case, they would make double their actual economic damage. AMSC lost some $750M in unpaid and unfulfilled contracts. But they would never had made another $450M had Sinovel not stolen the IP. If AMSC actually wins and gets $1.2B.....the moral of the story is, hope your customer steals your IP and uses it to violate the contract. Just remember to be financially secure enough to stay alive while you wait for the courts to take 10 years!
Well, my thinking is that the using stolen code with future wind turbine deliveries is not material to the commercial arbitration case. The case centers on the fact that Sinovel received product that they didn't pay for and refused deliveries of the remaining sums of the contracts. And at the least, Sinovel should be made to pay for delivered product and cost AMSC bared to scale up for the cancelled contracts. Why Sinovel broke that contract isn't material, just the fact that they did break it. Unless of course it was a result of inferior product that they claim AMSC delivered, but even then.....there probably was some resolution clause in the contract that they should have followed. If Sinovel can't prove that AMSC failed to deliver a quality product, Sinovel should have to compensate AMSC.
Seeking Alpha posted the transcripts for the Q3 CC.....you just have to check the website. Seeking Alpha no longer gets linked to the Yahoo! Finance news feeds. Maybe you have noticed the volume of news articles on the stocks you follow is a bit lighter in the last month? Either way, you could go to the CC hosting site and get a better transcript......you know, one where they actually transcribe what was actually said!
And ya, seriously.....now you are complaining they didn't buy Club O????
I guess that could be true.....but that means it will be a very long time before the majority of these lawsuits get finalized. One would think the commercial arbitration would be based on the contract that was signed and who broke what.....since Sinovel counter-claimed AMSC over quality issues. Sinovel violating IP rights is quite independent of refusing to pay for product that was delivered and future contracted deliveries. The IP rights only explains why Sinovel might have broke the contract, but the commercial arbitration is more precisely about the fact that they did break the contract. If Sinovel continued to take delivery and pay for product, and still violated AMSC's IP rights, their would be no claim for the arbitration case. Yet, if Sinovel did what it did, but never bothered to violate IP rights, AMSC would still have the same case.
Ya, I remember that too back when the jurisdiction was clarified earlier. I am just surprise they left it out of the press release, since there was really only one update on one case in the whole release. Everything else was old news. And it has seemed like nothing has happened on the commercial arbitration case in years, you would think the ball would start rolling once the jurisdiction was clarified.
Seems a bit weird that they didn't mention the commercial arbitration case in the press release. In the past, it has always been part of the court cases, too. Did they lose and we must wait until the next conference call and hope some analyst actually asks for an update on the cases, and specifically that case?
Unfortunately, those fees are common anytime a company uses a bank to help it raise money. The convertible are so attractive, Rick's could probably call up their ten largest shareholders and place a convertible on their own.....but they always end up using banks. But compared to what they give away with 9% or greater coupon and convertibility.....the fees are such added insult to injury!
None of those reasons! They didn't feel the license to operate as a strip club was secure enough to risk $11M to purchase the club and then invest more money to expand it. Recently, Harvey City Council and Mayor got duped (or so they claim) when a new strip club recent applied to operate a business. They apparently said they wanted to open a sports bar and when it was discovered that they were actually operating a strip club, they pulled the license and shut the place down.
Or they just outgrew their little warehouse that they have used for a decade plus......just one of those things you need to run a business, an office! You can look up their current location and make a determination if the current location is even remotely extravagant. Doesn't appear so to me......and $700k isn't buying much in Houston either.
There was a caveat with my numbers, "if the margins are similar to last quarter." But they weren't, you had a $334K loss on the sell of what I believe was the planned Beaumont restaurant location. Not a plane, since the tail number registration changed in July.....so next quarter we will see how that went. You had $800K more legal fees and over twice as much pre-opening expenses. Right there explains the 8 cents.
There seriously is no way to accurately predict earnings on Rick's being that it is so small. If Rick's had 1,000 locations doing $1m or more in revs a quarter, it would probably be pretty smooth. But they don't, so any $100K expense will have a material effect on the bottom line.
You never defined what period of time the short count was up......so I assumed you meant the change over the last 15 days since last reported. I guess you are just continuing on with old news......since it made that change a while ago, almost a year now? Yet held pretty constant since.......not to mention more than just the REIT has been announced since then. More likely the result of outstanding convertibles then any significant bet against the stock.
Les than 10,000 shares, yawn......what is that, 0.1% of the float. Rick's trades more than that everyday even.....
I take you mean the Spearmint Rhino case, settled for $13M. But one has to remember that was actually for 7 clubs. There Las Vegas has to be on par at least with NYC, being it is probably the one of the most popular clubs in Vegas and only 43% of the settlement after $2.5M for attorney fees, apply to that club. Basically a settlement of $4.5M on that one club. You can listen to oral arguments in the Nevada Supreme Court for Terry v. Sapphire at there website, which Sapphire won in lower courts.
Convertibles would be nice to get our hands on. But just hedge funds seem to be lucky enough. I think the delta on the $12.50 convertibles would be about 30% to 40%, which is about the amount of shorts outstanding. It appears that the shorts were put on around the same time as the convertibles were announced. I also note a large drop in shorts once the first two convertibles matured, so that is why I think most shorts are related to the convertibles.
Babbling? Really.....this from you who starts 4 or 5 topics some days all about the same thing? Come on......hilarious!
What should they right down goodwill against then? You are talking about the NYC club taking a loss on the labor suit.....what other club is taking any massive losses and not performing? And the Florida suit was dismissed and sent to remediation, if memory serves me correctly (I told you this in the past, so refer back to that comment......or look it up).
Oh, you learned how to spell goggles.....that is good! Nobody said the lawsuits weren't real.....they just have caused Rick's to take a losing quarter, yet. If NYC labor summary judgment holds up.....it will be a material charge for Rick's. But that day is probably a couple years down the road at the least. If they were going to settle for $5m, they could have done that a year ago. But you want them to write down goodwill on performing clubs.....that would be a fictional loss! Rick's NYC doesn't hold any goodwill on the books since they developed that club on their own.